People v. Beriales

Facts: The Court of First Instance sentenced each of the three accused to the penalty of
reclusionperpetua for the death of Saturnina Porcadilla. The trial court initially postponed trial upon a
motion for

deferment after appellants’ counsel asked for a reinvestigation. The trial court, however, motu proprio

moved up the arraignment and trial one week earlier after it was already postponed for two
weeks.Appellants counsel manifested that if this were to be done, the reinvestigation would not yet
have beenstarted by the Fiscal, yet the court issued the order a quo. On the date set by the trial court,
the judgeinsisted on arraigning the accused in spite of their refusal to do so in the absence of the fiscal,
andentered pleas of not guilty for each of them. Trial ensued in the absence of the fiscal, with the
privateprosecutor presenting evidence, while the defense counsel refused to cross-examine and
presentevidence for the defense, manifesting that they were not agreeing to the trial.Issue: Whether or
not the trial could have ensued without the reinvestigation.Ruling: No.

After the trial court granted the appellants’ motion for reinvestigation, it became incumbent

upon the court to hold in abeyance the arraignment and trial of the case until the City Fiscal shall
haveconducted and made his report on the result of such reinvestigation. That was a matter of duty on
itspart, not only to be consistent with its own order but also to do justice and at the same time to avoid
apossible miscarriage of justice